1st math cannot disprove reality, it can only model it.
... There are virtually infinite number of ways in which CHNOPS comprising protein can be arranged, and most are junk, or non-selectable arrangements. For e.g. for a protein 92 AA long, with 10e122 possible AA combinatios, there is only 1 in every 10e63 functional sequence*. On the other hand, published extreme upper limit estimates puts the maximum number of mutations or CHNOPS re-arrangements at 10e43**. ...
So if you model does not match reality, then there is something wrong with the model, not reality, and that's enough to answer your question.
2nd this type of argument is as old as the hills, and maybe you should do some research on it's validity first before making it.
I am not talking about models but physical resources available to evolution and virtually infinite number of ways in which CHNOPS comprising bio-structures can be arranged. ...
That is a mathematical model, and if you don't recognize it as such then you don't understand what you are arguing.
Message 13: I constructed an argument so simple that it cannot be misrepresented.
Premise 4: There were 10e43 resources(mutations) available in the whole evolution process.
Premise 5: There are 10e63 junk(non-selectable) arrangements of CHNOPS in just one simple bio-structure (protein).
And again, this is your mathematical model of reality. Surely you are aware of the old saw of aeronautical engineers proving mathematically that bumble bees cannot fly ... but since we KNOW they can and DO fly, then it is obvious that the math was erroneous. The bees did not suddenly fall to the ground unable to fly because of the math.
Likewise we have plenty of evidence that mutations occur, that selection occurs, that evolution occurs, so your argument is likewise invalid, no matter how pretty the numbers are to you.
Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
It happens virtually every day, in virtually every species. It has been observed. Get used to it.
Real theories are based on evidence and then math may be used to analyze and verify the theory, but math can never invalidate a theory, only empirical objective evidence can do that.
Premise 4: There were 10e43 resources(mutations) available in the whole evolution process.
Premise 5: There are 10e63 junk(non-selectable) arrangements of CHNOPS in just one simple bio-structure (protein).
You look at those numbers and say the math shows evolution cannot happen.
I look at those numbers and say that evolution happening shows the numbers are irrelevant.
The difference is that my argument is based on evidence, while yours is based on wishful thinking.
It is really unfortunate that you view this as a pissing contest. I simply stated three facts from which it follows logically that evolution didn't happen. ...
Except that evolution did and does happen, the objective empirical evidence demonstrates this every day in every species.
Therefore there is something wrong with your argument -- it is disproved by reality.
... Which of those three facts do you deny: possible spatial arrangements for ordinary collections of matter, share of bio-functionality in these arrangements or the resources available to search for this bio-functionality?
The numbers can very well be in the right ballpark, but there is an element missing between them and what actually occurs.
What is obvious is that the bumblebee does in fact fly.
Regarding the taxonomy this is just another word for the concept of evolution ...
Nope, try again. Perhaps learning what evolution actually is might help. See Evolution 101 from Berkeley for starters.
... The probability to find highly isolated clusters of bio-functionality(useful in terms of natural selection) in these arrangements is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event. No human concept can change that.
Correct, your opinion is entirely incapable of altering reality in any way shape or form.
It amuses me that you claim your argument is not a mathematical model of reality, yet all you argue with is numbers and their relationships, not objective empirical evidence.
I am genuinely stunned with the ability of the people in this thread to ignore the essence of my argument. This argument simply expresses the lack of the resources necessary to extract bio-functionality from organic matter, while most of the responses are just personal rationalizations of a priori belief in evolution. Only the last two posts are actually more or less direct responses, but are unfortunately flawed. ...
And yet bumblebees fly. The engineers that did the calculation went back and checked their assumptions, found where they were wrong, and in the process discovered an aspect of bumblebee flight they had not considered before. Something to consider.
Part of your problem is that you describe the issue in a way that limits the way resources available to create biotic and pre-biotic molecules are viewed.
A lot of creationist propaganda involves probabilities, with seemingly huge improbabilities calculated for such things as assembling complex organic molecules (usually calculated with them assembling completely from pure raw materials in one single random action). Such calculations are flawed on many levels, and one of them is addressed in this essay.
This is the flaw of failing to properly account for the actual beginning basis: failing to take into account the organic molecules that were readily formed on the surface of the earth. This essay is a look at some of those molecules and the likely pre-existing conditions for the formation of life on earth. I call these {molecules \ conditions} "building blocks" to denote that the search for how life actually came to be was built on these foundations. If you are looking for discussions on the {actual \ initial} formation of RNA or DNA you will need to look elsewhere, as this is looking at a much more rudimentary level of the question.
What is the status of what we know?
First off we have some peptides built out of existing amino acids (reference 1), activated by geochemical conditions similar to possible early earth conditions. That these basic building blocks of life were formed by this process is not disputed by such creationist organisations as AnswerInGenesis (AIG) (reference 2).
Then there is the question of hydrocarbons in outer space. The implications here are that a ready source of such organic compounds could seed a young planet with a bias for carbon based life centered on these molecules, and that this could in effect jump-start the development of life systems out of a chemical soup.
From these information sections it seems to me that the building blocks needed for beginning the creation of life were plentiful, not just on Earth but in space in general and from the earliest of times. Probably they have been around since long before even the Earth formed from the cosmic debris left behind by the life and death cycle of previous stars and planets, back to the beginning of time. These "seeds of life" no doubt extend through the far reaches of the universe as well as the depths of time (cue Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young ... "We are star dust ...").
It also seems to me that the natural processes for forming more complex structures from those basic building blocks were likely prevalent on the earth 4.5 billion years ago in a variety of forms, levels of completion and locations. We end with a scenario that has a random combination of plentiful and multitudinous organic molecules forming amino acids all over the earth, with a membranous system to contain and concentrate those molecules and their interactions within a protocell type capsule. We also see that random combination of plentiful and multitudinous amino acids into peptides and proteins is feasible, and that concentration and recombination within the membranous protocells enhances the probability that random combinations of them into the first "replicators" (the predecessors to RNA and DNA) is not as far fetched as it seemed at first. A simple building block process where the probability of a successful combination is almost inevitable: it is no longer a matter of "if" but of "when" it will occur under these conditions ... and once self replication occurs the frequency of replication will necessarily outpace the random action, and replicators that are faster and stronger will outpace their competition ... life seems inevitable when given the conditions for life.
That is my take on the probability of life on earth.
That was written 12 years ago, and since then further advances in the science of abiogenesis have occurred, increasing our knowledge of how life could develop with the resources available. It was followed by Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II), written 8 years ago.
Once developed, it would of course evolve, just as it continues to evolve today, in every known species. To evolve, it does not need to create new proteins de novo, it just needs to modify ones already in use, as is observed to occur in life today.
As you can see I come to very different conclusions than you do. Mine are evidence based, rather than mathematically and wishful thinking based.
... But unfortunately, these are just unfalsifiable narrative explanations ...
That just list objective empirical evidence. Facts do tend to be rather unfalsifiable ...
... This topic is about share of bio-functionality in organic matter and resources necessary to extract this bio-functionality. ...
So "bio-functionality in organic matter" means ...
in terms of what is needed for the formation of life: q: How many different combinations of the available amino acids (per Message 40) result in life? a1: (what IS life?)* ... unknown ... at least 1, because we observe one existing. a2: until this is known then calculating the number of possible configurations does not give you a complete picture. a3: knowing what amino acids are available at the start changes the number of possible protein arrangements of atoms to a much smaller number than ignoring them does.
in terms of what is needed for life to evolve: ... where evolution is defined as: The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. a: other life, nutrients, conducive habitat.
So again I come to the point where your argument is incomplete and based on you only looking at part of the issue and thinking you have a complete picture.
Bumblebees fly. If your calculations show that Bumblebees cannot fly, then the calculations are in error, bees don't suddenly drop to the ground. When engineers included the thrust generated during the backstroke, they showed the bees could fly.
Rather obviously, once you have life, you have all the "bio-functionality in organic matter" needed in the environment to allow organisms to grow, and thrive, and evolve. The fact that there are massive numbers of other possible combinations of organic molecules is totally and completely irrelevant to evolution occurring because the ones necessary for life to grow, and thrive, and evolve are assembled by existing life in the process of living.
Therefor it is impossible for your argument to inhibit life to grow, and thrive, and evolve. It won't suddenly stop because of your math. Your model is incomplete.
At best you have a (very) weak and incomplete argument against abiogenesis and none against evolution.
... Better luck next time.
Curiously, I don't need luck, I have objective empirical evidence to support my argument.
Enjoy
* simple definition for first life: something that can evolve.
All the responses made after my last post are boiling down to one hidden assumption, and that is that evolution jumps from one bio-functional solution to another. Well, here's the news. This hidden assumption is deeply flawed and it doesn't have any basis in reality because bio-structures exist as tiny clusters of bio-functionality in a vast empty space of non-functionality. ...
Actually that assumption is deeply flawed because it is completely wrong and in no way reflects how evolution actually works.
Doing so would stop you from making silly mistakes like this. It astounds me how many creationists/IDologists think they have proof that evolution doesn't work, and yet have no clue how it actually works.
But the problem arises when one tries to leave the island in order to find(extract bio-functionality) other islands(new protein folds or new organs), and find itself in a vast empty space of non-functionality - in an ocean. ...
And again, this is not how evolution actually works, it is more along the lines of a happy accident: a change in DNA sequence occurs and it has 3 possible outcomes:
it causes the organism to die,
it doesn't cause the organism to die, but does nothing for it either, or
it improves the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce.
The first are called deleterious mutations, and by causing the death of the organism they cull themselves from the reproductive gene pool.
The second are called neutral mutations, junk DNA, etc. and can continue to exist and even spread (via genetic drift) within the reproductive gene pool.
The third are called beneficial mutations, and because they improve the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce, they spread by natural selection within the reproductive gene pool.
Further such changes can occur in the second and third groups, but not in the first, obviously.
When a neutral mutation later interacts with another mutation and results in a beneficial mutation is how two step mutations can result in a beneficial mutation.
In this sense every living organism is a laboratory experimenting with small changes. Do you have any idea how many living organisms cover the earth today? Do you know how many generations of such laboratories have existed since life began on earth?
Evolution does not go looking for new proteins, it happens (stumbles) upon them by the happy accident of beneficial mutations.
This is why the actual processes of evolution disprove your argument of incredulity from massive numbers of actually irrelevant proteins.
You have two choices:
First, accept that you are wrong and go learn what evolution is actually about, or
Second, deny or ignore this fact and continue to assert a false argument. Just remember that there are four types of people that don't accept evolution (based on Dawkins' article "ignorance is not a crime"):
Stupid -- can't understand the processes,
Ignorant -- unaware of the actual processes of evolution (a condition that is curable with education),
Deceitful -- lying about or misrepresenting the actual processes of evolution, and
Deluded -- ranging from stark raving mad down to being deluded by a deceitful person into believing a false narrative (a condition that is also curable with education, but it also requires a willingness to abandon the deceitful narrative in pursuit of truth). People who are "willfully ignorant" fall into this last class.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)
